Mark, just trying to gain some screen material insights if you don't mind. With the setup you are using with the Snomatt screen, its dedicated theater room at AVS correct? I'm very tempted by what you are saying re the extra precision of screen material of the Snomatt 100, but concerned in my less than dedicated room with it's dark front and back walls, I would regret not having the small bit of gain the 130 provides at any times other than full lights out viewing? Particularly if I made the step up to 107" wide 1.78.

Speaking window to reality, I'm finding with the best 3D source material, I now get that affect with the 1000 as well and the sense of immersion makes it even more incredible.

The theater is in my house in Maryland. We use it as an AV Science Sales showroom and test facility. Tom Huffman also uses it quite a bit.

Its a black pit except for the fromt chairs which are cream colored which I purchased long ago before I knew better.

The Snomatt is not to be used in a less than black pit room. It has a gain of one and sprays light all over the place. My black everything sucks it up killing all reflections. yYou can see a lot more of the black fabric on the walls with the Snomatt vs the Studeotec 130. My screen is small but I do not miss the gain in 2D. There is a noticeable drop off in brightness because of the reduction in screen gain. This is not surprising given how much more noticeable it is to ones eyes given how low in brightness 3D is to start with. Remember to perceive a doubling in brightness to ones eyes the brightness must increase by a factor of four. Start with a low number to begin with and a 30% increase in brightness shows up as considerable brightness. start with a much higher number as in 2D and a 30% increase is nowhere near as noticeable. I think with this projector a large screen requires a higher gain screen though I would not go much higher than 1.4 except if the throw were enogh to exceed the optical srface gain. This means with a high gain gray screen such as a Firehawk (1.25 gain) with a substrate gain of about 0.8 but a sprayed on coating of about 1.6 (.8 x 1.6=1.286) a throw of 1.6 would be needed to avoid hotspotting.

Although I know my views on HP 2.4 are not widely agreed to by owners of this screen, I would coinclude that the HP2.4 is much better thn the 2.4 because of a much greater half angle, I think one just gives up too much for the benefits of the gain. Its really easy to prefer the brightest image and the HPwill give one that, but so much else is given up. 4K requires a very good smooth textureless viewing surface. I would much rather have a dimmer screen to get what I am getting with the 1000ES.

I have sold many Studeotec 130 screens over my life and few ever complain about it. But I have seen the err darkness. The Snomatt just removes a layer of guaze from the picture. We are talking liquidity here. No grain just a smooth clear liquid. I am sure some of the 4K new materials out there would allow the machine to shine but even with my small size screen (54 x 96) I could not go down to a gain of 0.8, it would just be too dim. With this machine and its calibrated lumens in the 1600 lumens range, with a large screen one must go to a higher gain and not get some of the benefits that would be there with this machine with a screen gain of one or so. Everything we do in HT is a tradeoff, there is no perfect choice when one has a very large screen.

That said for 3D in my HT, I would choose the 2.4 HP, brightness is just too important for 3D. I will probably be getting a floor standing HP 2.4 for 3D.

Its all a personal and there is nothing wrong with liking bright over all else. To me I will take 2D less bright and not miss any bit of magic this projector is capable of and it is magic.

I am just trying to express my views here. Not start a flame war with those who think the HP 2.8 was the best screen ever and the second best the HP 2.4. I really didn't know how much more the 1000ES had to give until I switched to Snomatt.

What's further odd is the condition changed tonight - now I see the reddish band at the bottom, and the band that was about a third of the way from the bottom is more than a little above the halfway point, and appears almost like a subtle rainbow:

.....
That said for 3D in my HT, I would choose the 2.4 HP, brightness is just too important for 3D. I will probably be getting a floor standing HP 2.4 for 3D.

I am just trying to express my views here. Not start a flame war with those who think the HP 2.8 was the best screen ever and the second best the HP 2.4. I really didn't know how much more the 1000ES had to give until I switched to Snomatt.

This would be very neat, Mark, if you got a HP2.4 for 3d, and we could really get a good comparison of how it compares to the SnoMatt (viewing angle notwithstanding). I do find the HP2.4 to give an extremely smooth (maybe fluid, to use your description), but then I haven't seen a SnoMatt for comparison.

Thrang. What happens if you shut RC off. I can cause banding by what I assume would be improper combinations of resolution and noise filtering. Put up a pixel on off pattern with your lumagen and see how playing with various RC combinations can cause some banding.

The theater is in my house in Maryland. We use it as an AV Science Sales showroom and test facility. Tom Huffman also uses it quite a bit.

Its a black pit except for the fromt chairs which are cream colored which I purchased long ago before I knew better.

The Snomatt is not to be used in a less than black pit room. It has a gain of one and sprays light all over the place. My black everything sucks it up killing all reflections. yYou can see a lot more of the black fabric on the walls with the Snomatt vs the Studeotec 130. My screen is small but I do not miss the gain in 2D. There is a noticeable drop off in brightness because of the reduction in screen gain. This is not surprising given how much more noticeable it is to ones eyes given how low in brightness 3D is to start with. Remember to perceive a doubling in brightness to ones eyes the brightness must increase by a factor of four. Start with a low number to begin with and a 30% increase in brightness shows up as considerable brightness. start with a much higher number as in 2D and a 30% increase is nowhere near as noticeable. I think with this projector a large screen requires a higher gain screen though I would not go much higher than 1.4 except if the throw were enogh to exceed the optical srface gain. This means with a high gain gray screen such as a Firehawk (1.25 gain) with a substrate gain of about 0.8 but a sprayed on coating of about 1.6 (.8 x 1.6=1.286) a throw of 1.6 would be needed to avoid hotspotting.

Although I know my views on HP 2.4 are not widely agreed to by owners of this screen, I would coinclude that the HP2.4 is much better thn the 2.4 because of a much greater half angle, I think one just gives up too much for the benefits of the gain. Its really easy to prefer the brightest image and the HPwill give one that, but so much else is given up. 4K requires a very good smooth textureless viewing surface. I would much rather have a dimmer screen to get what I am getting with the 1000ES.

I have sold many Studeotec 130 screens over my life and few ever complain about it. But I have seen the err darkness. The Snomatt just removes a layer of guaze from the picture. We are talking liquidity here. No grain just a smooth clear liquid. I am sure some of the 4K new materials out there would allow the machine to shine but even with my small size screen (54 x 96) I could not go down to a gain of 0.8, it would just be too dim. With this machine and its calibrated lumens in the 1600 lumens range, with a large screen one must go to a higher gain and not get some of the benefits that would be there with this machine with a screen gain of one or so. Everything we do in HT is a tradeoff, there is no perfect choice when one has a very large screen.

That said for 3D in my HT, I would choose the 2.4 HP, brightness is just too important for 3D. I will probably be getting a floor standing HP 2.4 for 3D.

Its all a personal and there is nothing wrong with liking bright over all else. To me I will take 2D less bright and not miss any bit of magic this projector is capable of and it is magic.

I am just trying to express my views here. Not start a flame war with those who think the HP 2.8 was the best screen ever and the second best the HP 2.4. I really didn't know how much more the 1000ES had to give until I switched to Snomatt.

Thanks for explaining your viewing conds Mark. That's is a big help. I know then I will stick with the Studiotek 130 material if I do go larger now. I'm def very happy with 3D performance, even though as you say you can easily crank up to a 2.4 gain for a dedicated use 3D use. If I get to build another dedicated theater moving forward, I will def equip it with Snomatt and a HP 2.4 combo!

Thrang. What happens if you shut RC off. I can cause banding by what I assume would be improper combinations of resolution and noise filtering. Put up a pixel on off pattern with your lumagen and see how plaing with various RC combinations can cause the banding.

I'll check again mark, but Sony described it as a known HW issue.

That would be some major defect of RC processing to cause that type of banding - though I will say I did play with the RC settings between Sunday and Monday, and the banding is different as posted...

Now that quite a few people on this thread actually have the 1000, can a few of you do me a favor and just turn your unit over from table mounted position to upside down, and then back. BOTH of my units have something inside that physically shifts when its turned over, right as it reaches the full 180 degrees. Its fairly quiet, but its a distinct movement. Someone already said theirs does not do this, but I dont want to pursue with Sony if others can replicate. Since it is on both of mine, I am hesitant to think its not a common design thing, but then again, I have serial numbers that are only 4 apart. Could be something they didnt catch until a bit later.

So no amount of adjusting or turning off settings changes the banding issue (even RC off, Panel Adjustment off, etc).

But what is odd is the banding is in different places again today:

Could this be a heat related issue?

The rainbow look almost makes me think optics, but that wouldn't explain the band being in different places.

The above picture was taken after the projector was on for 30 minutes or so..I'll leave it on for a some time and see if there's a change. But looking at all three of my screen shots will lead to some head scratching...

You need to call the ES integrator hot line and the good folks there I would think will promptly ship you an advance replacement. Your dealer should have the number and really doesn't have to get involved. Sony will pick up all expenses so you really have no worries.

You need to call the ES integrator hot line and the good folks there I would think will promptly ship you an advance replacement. Your dealer should have the number and really doesn't have to get involved. Sony will pick up all expenses so you really have no worries.

Yes, one is in transit from Texas today I believe.

I'd like to know what the issue is, and know that it is really solved. I'm not the only one that has reported some banding, though maybe others have had their units swapped rapidly enough that they haven't had the "moving" experience I'm witnessing.

To check if it was a light path issue through the lense elements (the rainbow effect gives that feel), I shifted the image down a few feet and lifted the front of the projector up to change the angle through the lens - no difference.

Yeah I'm leaning to the 2.4 HP given how pleased I am with the 2.8 - I will have a sno matt and some si samples, so i'll see if the belief of better clarity with someting like the sno matt matters when compared to the high power material...

Thrang please post your observations re the HP 2.4 vs the Snowmatt/ST100. Few have compared both, especially with a 4k projector. Should be interesting. Thanks.

With all the talk about banding, I put up the AVS full screen gray scale to check it out over the whole IRE range, and really don't see anything of significance.

While I had up the 100 IRE screen I also took a fc reading to check the lumen output, now at 102 hrs on the lamp. I get 1100 lumens. This is in low lamp, Reference preset, RC 'on' at 20/20, DI on 'limited', MF 'off', Contrast max, Br at 51, color temp D65, Sharpness 10, Smooth Grad 'low', Black level adj 'off', gamma 2.2, BT709, everything else 'off', Aspect = 2.35 Zoom (so that I get a 17x9 HDTV pic). Great pic.

With all the talk about banding, I put up the AVS full screen gray scale to check it out over the whole IRE range, and really don't see anything of significance.

While I had up the 100 IRE screen I also took a fc reading to check the lumen output, now at 102 hrs on the lamp. I get 1100 lumens. This is in low lamp, Reference preset, RC 'on' at 20/20, DI on 'limited', MF 'off', Contrast max, Br at 51, color temp D65, Sharpness 10, Smooth Grad 'low', Black level adj 'off', gamma 2.2, BT709, everything else 'off', Aspect = 2.35 Zoom (so that I get a 17x9 HDTV pic). Great pic.

And after being on for several hours today, the banding was in different positions on my unit...so hoping the new one is clear of this issue. I sent another email to Sony showing the variations and asking for some answer as to the cause, but so far no response.

Well, SI was really pleasant and is sending samples, as are DaLite for the 2.4 HP.

So far, one voicemail and two emails to Stewart have gone unanswered, so I'm getting the opinion they are not that interested in the business...

I had the same poblem. Stewart does not send samples out directly to consumers as they did in the past (unless you are very persistent as I was). It is much easier to have a dealer request the samples and Stewart will drop ship them to you. While requesting the ST100, you might want to request a ST130 sample for comparison.

I had the same poblem. Stewart does not send samples out directly to consumers as they did in the past (unless you are very persistent as I was). It is much easier to have a dealer request the samples and Stewart will drop ship them to you. While requesting the ST100, you might want to request a ST130 sample for comparison.

Well, SI was really pleasant and is sending samples, as are DaLite for the 2.4 HP.

So far, one voicemail and two emails to Stewart have gone unanswered, so I'm getting the opinion they are not that interested in the business...

Stewart will not send out samples. They supply their dealers with samples and any Stewart dealer should be able to send you a sample immediately. We have plenty. I am traveling tomorrow, but if you call the AV Science Sales toll free number, Cindy will be happy to send you or anyone else here a sample.

I do find it next to impossible to determine how a screen will perform based on just puting up a small sample. Certain things however can be observed but the thing that grabs one most (unfairly) is which one is brightest. Be sure to put up on of pixel patterns and determine sharpness. Look for grain. Black levels etc. Hotspotting can't be observed on many high gain screens this way.

The 1080p shown in the screen shots is a 3 chip 1080p DLP Runco VX44d (£80,000), and the 4K projector is of course the new Sony VPL VW1000ES (£16,800). They were fed identical material from the same player, both onto the XD screen. First, it's amazing the difference in detail from changing only the projector. Keep in mind that while the Sony's 4K may seem like ridiculous overkill for now, this incredible performance improvement is available at a fraction of the cost of the 3-chip Runco. Of course, the Runco is crazy-price, but it always makes my heart flutter when something much less expensive performs so much better.

Also, please note that the performance of this nearly-six figure, otherwise state of the art projector is not being limited by the Center Stage XD screen. In fact, the screen has so much more to resolve. Also, while the argument is solid that if you buy a quality, reference projection screen it will last through several projectors and be the best investment in the room, keep in mind how inexpensive the XD screen is relative to the other equipment.

With all the talk about banding, I put up the AVS full screen gray scale to check it out over the whole IRE range, and really don't see anything of significance.

While I had up the 100 IRE screen I also took a fc reading to check the lumen output, now at 102 hrs on the lamp. I get 1100 lumens. This is in low lamp, Reference preset, RC 'on' at 20/20, DI on 'limited', MF 'off', Contrast max, Br at 51, color temp D65, Sharpness 10, Smooth Grad 'low', Black level adj 'off', gamma 2.2, BT709, everything else 'off', Aspect = 2.35 Zoom (so that I get a 17x9 HDTV pic). Great pic.

Interesting read, although I'm not too sure about them trying to demonstrate 4k on my 1080p monitor :P...
I trust what you guys say though, plus I've seen one at the cinema and did notice some benefits of 4k.

That one demo reminded me of the old Magnavox commerical where they show the parrot in a tropical paradise, and you think, dang that looks good, I need a new TV, but then you realized you were watching it on your own TV, and yes those commericals are from 10 to 20 years ago I believe.

Had our first 3d movie tonight...Hugo. Personally, I don't really get why it received such great reviews, BUT the 3d was phenomenal. Really excites me about future 3d now that I have this projector.

100% agree. First rate 3D, slooooow story. I almost fell asleep about 5 times. Damn you HIDef Digest (again) for the BS review. They have been on a roll lately. Trusting their reviews is like pulling an praying!!